• DOI:10.1080/10502551003597808
• Corpus ID: 143674769

Attachment Theory and Parental Alienation

@article{Lowenstein2010AttachmentTA,
  title={Attachment Theory and Parental Alienation},
  author={Ludwig F. Lowenstein},
  journal={Journal of Divorce \& Remarriage},
  year={2010},
  volume={51},
  pages={157 - 168}
}

• L. Lowenstein
• Published 7 April 2010
• Psychology
• Journal of Divorce & Remarriage

Following an acrimonious divorce or separation, arguments are frequently presented as to why a child should not be with a nonresident parent. The custodial parent, whether a father or a mother, uses the concept of a child being attached to himself or herself and therefore this should prevent the child from having actual or reasonable contact with the absent parent. This view is based on antagonism between the former partners rather than the importance of the attachment theory being relevant. The attachment theory is also used to discredit the intentions of the noncustodial parent. This is especially the case for the younger child. With older children this is not likely to be as relevant. The history of the development of the attachment theory commencing with Bowlby and Ainsworth is presented, and the counterarguments are also presented. Attachment to the mother is obviously important initially but attachment to the father is equally important to the child and such bonding is likely to lead to positive emotional and behavioral development. It is therefore argued that both fathers and mothers have an important role to play and are, or should be, responsible for the rearing of children. The acrimony between the couple should not be considered as relevant as it is, in fact, the real reason why attachment theory is used against a nonresident parent.